Cited by 130Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesRNA Research and SplicingGene expression and cancer classification

A comprehensive evaluation of ensembl, RefSeq, and UCSC annotations in the context of RNA-seq read mapping and gene quantification

Open access
Zhao, Shanrong, Zhang, Baohong·2015·BMC Genomics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: RNA-Seq has become increasingly popular in transcriptome profiling. One aspect of transcriptome research is to quantify the expression levels of genomic elements, such as genes, their transcripts and exons. Acquiring a transcriptome expression profile requires genomic elements to be defined in the context of the genome. Multiple human genome annotation databases exist, including RefGene (RefSeq Gene), Ensembl, and the UCSC annotation database. The impact of the choice of an annotation on estimating gene expression remains insufficiently investigated. RESULTS: In this paper, we systematically characterized the impact of genome annotation choice on read mapping and transcriptome quantification by analyzing a RNA-Seq dataset generated by the Human Body Map 2.0 Project. The impact of a gene model on mapping of non-junction reads is different from junction reads. For the RNA-Seq dataset with a read length of 75 bp, on average, 95% of non-junction reads were mapped to exactly the same genomic location regardless of which gene models was used. By contrast, this percentage dropped to 53% for junction reads. In addition, about 30% of junction reads failed to align without the assistance of a gene model, while 10-15% mapped alternatively. There are 21,958 common genes among RefGene, Ensembl, and UCSC annotations. When we compared the gene quantification results in RefGene and Ensembl annotations, 20% of genes are not expressed, and thus have a zero count in both annotations. Surprisingly, identical gene quantification results were obtained for only 16.3% (about one sixth) of genes. Approximately 28.1% of genes' expression levels differed by 5% or higher, and of those, the relative expression levels for 9.3% of genes (equivalent to 2038) differed by 50% or greater. The case studies revealed that the gene definition differences in gene models frequently result in inconsistency in gene quantification. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that the choice of a gene model has a dramatic effect on both gene quantification and differential analysis. Our research will help RNA-Seq data analysts to make an informed choice of gene model in practical RNA-Seq data analysis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12864-015-1308-8

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The choice of gene model can strongly impact quantification and differential expression analysis.

    “The choice of gene model can also have a strong impact on the quantification and differential expression analysis [206].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [206]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 130

Authors
Zhao, S., & Zhang, B.
Affiliations
Pfizer (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Zhao, Shanrong
Venue
BMC Genomics
Published
2015-02-18
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
97-97
ISSN
1471-2164 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2042690128
Cited by
130
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 8
FWCI
6.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Genomics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Pfizer
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Research and Splicing
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
genome annotation, gene models, RNA-seq read mapping, gene expression quantification, Ensembl, reference sequences, alternative splicing, gene expression profiling, differential gene expression
MeSH terms
Base Sequence, Exons, Humans, RNA, Messenger, Genome, Human, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Genomics, Databases, Genetic, Molecular Sequence Annotation, Transcriptome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review